Have I understood the the importance of Commentaries and Abhidhamma correctly?

[Ceisiwr]

Estimation of Authenticity or Accuracy merely based on written time, is not a sensible approach at all.

What, actually, are the reasons for people to engage in such immature speculations?

It lets you see if there has been a development in thinking, and so what the earlier teachings looked like.
I'm not claiming that later = bad by the way. Why do you think textual analysis is "immature"?

The maximum accurate assumption that can be derived by the textual analysis is, it's written date.

How can the written date be considered as a fact for proving a text as inaccurate or unnecessary?

It is just written date.

Therefore such approach is "immature".

If you accept that there was an oral tradition before, then we can trace it back. For example if we see agreement between Sarvāstivādin and Theravādin texts then we can date these to around 250 B.C., roughly around the time of the 3rd council. Isn't that a great thing? I think it is. Why wouldn't you want to see what teaching was around in the earliest of times? If you don't accept a valid oral tradition then of course this is nonsense, but if you do not accept said tradition I find it strange then that you are so orthodox.

Anyway, this isn't the early buddhism forum.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

[...] we can date [...] Whilst some commentary is very old, that doesn't mean all of it is. I imagine there is actually a layer in the commentaries, with some being earlier than others.

We must admit, however, that we actually "can't", really. What is offered in Buddhist studies, from fair scholars at least, are highly conjectural attempts at dating, for which alternatives exist that may make equal, if not better, sense for an earlier date.

I agree, there are obviously layers to it, and the tradition also admits that. Unfortunately, many seem to miss the "very old part" and throw the baby out with the bathwater ...

[Ṭhānuttamo]

I think it is only reasonable to see Atthakatha as miscellaneous teachings given by Lord Buddha and Arahants to their students. Otherwise, to think Lord Buddha and all other Arahants said nothing more than what was recorded in the Suttas, is so illogical and highly improbable.

Indeed, highly improbable! As was said of Ven. Sāriputta alone that he was the main branch of the sāsana. Nothing left of the main branch and the other aggasāvakas? Improbable, as you say.

[TRobinson465]

Commentaries are helpful for understanding the texts as they were understood a few hundred years after the time of the Lord Buddha. Which is probably more accurate to the actual teachings than how modern people 2,600 years after the time of the Lord Buddha and living in a completely different world, culture and society would interpret them on their own.

[Ceisiwr]

[...] we can date [...] Whilst some commentary is very old, that doesn't mean all of it is. I imagine there is actually a layer in the commentaries, with some being earlier than others.

We must admit, however, that we actually "can't", really. What is offered in Buddhist studies, from fair scholars at least, are highly conjectural attempts at dating, for which alternatives exist that may make equal, if not better, sense for an earlier date.

I agree, there are obviously layers to it, and the tradition also admits that. Unfortunately, many seem to miss the "very old part" and throw the baby out with the bathwater ...

It's not certain, no, but if we find a Sarvāstivādin text in agreement with a Theravādin text then this text was likely in circulation around roughly 250 B.C. Dating commentaries will be harder, as there isn't much (that I know of) to compare with.

[Jack19990101]

I am apprehensive of the positive effect to keep a fixed set of commentary.

I want to refute this particular reason - in order to propel confusions around sutta.
I doubt it will work. We will now have confusion on commentary too. Soon there gonna be scream for need of commentary to commentary. so on.

I think confusion on Buddha's words, with rather large followers, is inevitable. We saw this scenario in Sutta, most outstandingly, Fisherman's son Sati.
If Sutta can cause confusion, why do we think commentary is immune to confusion.
Not make much sense, init.

I am not against commentary, I am against a fixed set of commentary. If we gonna have commentary, we should allow modification, addition, removal, and side to side different commentary on key pieces.

Another point, It never is given a convincing reason that commentary is indeed exact what Buddha means, and Buddha only means one single interpretation for all temperaments.

What if misinterpretation did occur in the official commentary.
(BTW, I never have read commentary, so the question is not particular, I also don't incline to be particular. Just a concern on structure of a doctrine in general).

This concern gonna sound very offensive to many who have faith in commentary - this is exactly the problem.

[Eko Care]

I am not against commentary, I am against a fixed set of commentary. If we gonna have commentary, we should allow modification, addition, removal, and side to side different commentary on key pieces.

Even when the commentary is fixed (present status), some people try to modify it with their own comments.
If you allow modification, It is like putting hay on fire.

Another point, It never is given a convincing reason that commentary is indeed exact what Buddha means, and Buddha only means one single interpretation for all temperaments.

It never is given a convincing reason that commentary is indeed not exact what Buddha (and close desciples) mean.

What if misinterpretation did occur in the official commentary.

Then it has been allowed re-correction, by the very commentary verses.
But it is to be done using the interpretation method used in other (majority) part of it.

BTW, I never have read commentary,

I know it. Because I have interacted with many non-believers of the commentary.

Most of them ,if not all, have never read considerable part of it.

The people, who are always entangled with redefining Pali terms in this DW, also said that they have not read.

This is the very reason for their non-belief as well.

My fluency in pāḷi is not yet up to the level where I can read the commentaries unaided.
... I'm just not yet able to understand what (untranslated) commentary is saying.

Yet they engage in re-defining Pali terms like Pali experts.

And they have already made conclusions about the commentary even before reading them.

What an immature approach !

[Ṭhānuttamo]

Commentaries are helpful for understanding the texts as they were understood a few hundred years after the time of the Lord Buddha. Which is probably more accurate to the actual teachings than how modern people 2,600 years after the time of the Lord Buddha and living in a completely different world, culture and society would interpret them on their own.

As to the first statement: There is direct evidence that they were codified during the first three Buddhist Councils, in their own words. As is explained in the vinaya and the suttas, the aggasāvakas and the regular ones, or at least some of them, had even during the time of the Buddha disciples, sometimes quite large numbers. Don't you believe that it is only natural that their students would ask them questions on how to understand what the Buddha meant in this or that teaching? Or do you think every common bhikkhu had the chance to always go directly to double check with the Blessed One as they would like or have no questions at all? It is just natural to assume that the subsequent explanations given as a reply to their student's questions would be recorded somewhere. First in memory, later in writing. There is simply no way to verify the opposite and categorically state that the commentarial material does not reach back to the time of the Buddha and the three Councils. I agree with your second point. I like your signature quote also very much: "Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

[Ṭhānuttamo]

It's not certain, no, but if we find a Sarvāstivādin text in agreement with a Theravādin text then this text was likely in circulation around roughly 250 B.C. Dating commentaries will be harder, as there isn't much (that I know of) to compare with.

Or earlier, possibly at the time of the Buddha. That other schools disagree doesn't say all too much for me. Try to imagine you have one genuine dollar bill alongside a handful of counterfeit ones. Just because all the others ones don't agree with the genuine one, doesn't mean that the genuine one is also a counterfeit due to the disagreement. I mean it is just another possible way of seeing it.

[Ceisiwr]

It's not certain, no, but if we find a Sarvāstivādin text in agreement with a Theravādin text then this text was likely in circulation around roughly 250 B.C. Dating commentaries will be harder, as there isn't much (that I know of) to compare with.

Or earlier, possibly at the time of the Buddha. That other schools disagree doesn't say all too much for me. Try to imagine you have one genuine dollar bill alongside a handful of counterfeit ones. Just because all the others ones don't agree with the genuine one, doesn't mean that the genuine one is also a counterfeit due to the disagreement. I mean it is just another possible way of seeing it.

I’m not one to dismiss a text just because it has no parallel, be it Sarvastivadin or Theravadin.

[Ṭhānuttamo]

I’m not one to dismiss a text just because it has no parallel, be it Sarvastivadin or Theravadin.

That sounds wise!

[TRobinson465]

Commentaries are helpful for understanding the texts as they were understood a few hundred years after the time of the Lord Buddha. Which is probably more accurate to the actual teachings than how modern people 2,600 years after the time of the Lord Buddha and living in a completely different world, culture and society would interpret them on their own.

As to the first statement: There is direct evidence that they were codified during the first three Buddhist Councils, in their own words. As is explained in the vinaya and the suttas, the aggasāvakas and the regular ones, or at least some of them, had even during the time of the Buddha disciples, sometimes quite large numbers. I agree with your second point.

The second and third Buddhist councils were still at least a hundred years after the time of the Buddha, so that doesnt refute my first statement. Nor did I mean my first statement to be a criticism of commentaries, in fact it was the opposite. It was more of a steel man of the common argument used by Suttavada and EBT people agaisnt commentaries and then a refutation of the argument's logic using my second statement, just to be clear.

You can also argue that because they were written at least a few hundred years after the time of the Buddha, they are still later texts because the oral tradition has room for error, although the same can be said of the suttas themselves. We can see pretty clear evidence of the lack of accuracy of the oral tradition over time due to the various versions of the tripitaka among different early Buddhist schools due to the oral tradition's inaccuracies before they were written down. The Sarvāstivāda Tripitaka differs form the Pudgalavāda, which differs from the Mahāsāṃghik tripitaka which differs from Mulasarvastivada tripitaka, which differs from the Dharmaguptaka Tripitaka. In all they were still mostly the same, but there were indeed differences within each schools texts, including differences in accounts of the same events.

Don't you believe that it is only natural that their students would ask them questions on how to understand what the Buddha meant in this or that teaching? Or do you think every common bhikkhu had the chance to always go directly to double check with the Blessed One as they would like or have no questions at all? It is just natural to assume that the subsequent explanations given as a reply to their student's questions would be recorded somewhere. First in memory, later in writing. There is simply no way to verify the opposite and categorically state that the commentarial material does not reach back to the time of the Buddha and the three Councils.

I believe the first statement is perfectly possible yes.

[Eko Care]

Nor did I mean my first statement to be a criticism of commentaries, in fact it was the opposite. It was more of a steel man of the common argument used by Suttavada and EBT people against commentaries and then a refutation of the argument's logic using my second statement, just to be clear.

[Eko Care]

It lets you see if there has been a development in thinking, and so what the earlier teachings looked like.
I'm not claiming that later = bad by the way. Why do you think textual analysis is "immature"?

The maximum accurate assumption that can be derived by the textual analysis is, it's written date.

How can the written date be considered as a fact for proving a text as inaccurate or unnecessary?

It is just written date.

Therefore such approach is "immature".

If you accept that there was an oral tradition before, then we can trace it back. For example if we see agreement between Sarvāstivādin and Theravādin texts then we can date these to around 250 B.C., roughly around the time of the 3rd council. Isn't that a great thing? I think it is. Why wouldn't you want to see what teaching was around in the earliest of times? ....

I think you are talking about the mutually agreed portion of texts.

Still there is no acceptable reason to say the remaining portion is inauthentic.

Other sects would never include anything they don't agree with, into their texts.

That is why some classical scholars say that this unique portion is the most important when it comes to interpreting texts.

[wenjaforever]

Have you ever heard of the problem solving skill? It's a very useful in life but you can't learn it from any definite source. Can you learn investing from a guru or book or course or university degree and actually turn a profit? Who taught the people who invented the touch screen or microprocessor or petrol engines? Who taught the first rich person to be rich from trade? Did they went to school? Who taught the guy who built the first aircraft or tank? Who taught the guy who built the first aircraft carrier or submarine? How do you determine what truly happened in past history? Is the earth flat? Do galaxies exist? Which one is bigger the earth or the sun? Are dinosaurs real? Is evolution real?